8 ms·

Because of the fundamental concept of property, and ownership, and the right to control your own creations? It's one thing to voluntarily release something int

Because of the fundamental concept of property, and ownership, and the right to control your own creations? It's one thing to voluntarily release something into the public domain (or enable its direct re-use via licenses like Creative Commons). It's another thing to say that all work should be public property, usable as long as credit is given. Or are you suggesting that everything belongs to the People, comrade? Even disregarding the profit motive for a second here - if I created a successful web page, should, say, the Westboro Baptist Church be free to take my web page and use it to support their (IMO vile) efforts, so long as they gave credit?

danbmil99 15y ago
> Because of the fundamental concept of property, and ownership, and the right to control your own creations? heh, good thing this crowd sincerely applies that ethic to music and visual art/entertainment.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  I don't think the community in general objects to ownership of music and visual art/entertainment. The objection usually centers around the draconian and unethical ways of enforcing this ownership. You can support the concept of intellectual ownership without supporting the draconian (and sometimes illegal) means by which some people would like to enforce said ownership. We can also accept the reality and futility of perfect control of your creations without relinquishing moral claim to our creative work.
Peaker 15y ago
But we're talking about ideas and expressions, not property. Yes, the WBC should be allowed to copy if everyone else is. The benefits seem to me to dwarf the downsides.
- potatolicious 15y ago
  So you oppose the GPL, Apache, and BSD licenses? Or really, any software license? After all, they are conditions for the distribution and derivation of a creative work. You support private companies taking this freely-given resource, creating products from it, profiting from them, and not release the source as the conditions demand?
  - allait 15y ago
    BSD, Apache and many other licenses allow exactly this: derived works may be released under proprietary license.
  - Peaker 15y ago
    Well, given that I oppose copyright, I support the GPL -- exactly because it uses copyright restrictions to neutralize copyright restrictions. In other words, the only restrictions placed by the GPL are those that restrict use of copyright -- and I definitely support those. Apache and BSD licenses are basically only anti-plagiarizing, afaik. How would companies profit from a work that everyone can freely copy, in a way that does not add value to society and indeed to the original author?
baddox 15y ago
True, it is another thing, but I'll say it: all work (obviously, in this context of digital "intellectual property") should be public. I left "property" off the end of the sentence for the same reason I put "intellectual property" in quotes: I don't believe that property rights make sense when applied to abstract, non-scarce things like ideas and digital works. This really isn't about controlling the fruits of your labor, because creative works are really only valuable if they're distributed. If you want to design a website and keep it secret on your local machine, then by all means property rights protect it (i.e. it's illegal to steal your laptop). But if you distribute it on a global network where people freely trade bits, I don't believe you should have the right to control which bits people can copy and which bits they can't. Both choices (keeping the website secret or publishing it) constitute your legal rights to the fruits of your labor. But once someone gets the bits onto their computer with your consent (by visiting your public website), I don't believe you should have the right to control what they can do with those bits. If you like, I believe you have the right to perform any obfuscation you want to with your digital works, or find ways of providing scarce (non-copyable) value. DRM and software as a service are examples of these, respectively.
- ams6110 15y ago
  This is the same argument that was had about whether it was OK to make photocopies of content in books and magazines at the library, or record a radio broadcast or TV program. I would agree with you that up to a point it is: the content is made available to or broadcast to the public, and that implies a certain license to personally do what you want with it once you receive it. Hence copying or scanning printed material for later reference, time-shifting TV programs and sports events with DVR is generally and legally recognized as "OK" (I believe that "fair use" is the legal term here). Likewise when you put your creative content on the internet, you are implicitly granting some license to people who view that content. They can view the source, study your CSS and javascript, save it for offline viewing if they want. But when you take someone else's content, be it a book, a TV broadcast or a web site design, copy it either completely or substantially, and then proceed to personally profit from that work without the permission of the creator, you've crossed the line. Granted the distinction between copying (bad) and imitation (flattery?) can be fuzzy, but in this case it seems very clear.

danbmil99 15y ago

> Because of the fundamental concept of property, and ownership, and the right to control your own creations? heh, good thing this crowd sincerely applies that ethic to music and visual art/entertainment.

potatolicious 15y ago
I don't think the community in general objects to ownership of music and visual art/entertainment. The objection usually centers around the draconian and unethical ways of enforcing this ownership. You can support the concept of intellectual ownership without supporting the draconian (and sometimes illegal) means by which some people would like to enforce said ownership. We can also accept the reality and futility of perfect control of your creations without relinquishing moral claim to our creative work.

Peaker 15y ago

But we're talking about ideas and expressions, not property. Yes, the WBC should be allowed to copy if everyone else is. The benefits seem to me to dwarf the downsides.

potatolicious 15y ago
So you oppose the GPL, Apache, and BSD licenses? Or really, any software license? After all, they are conditions for the distribution and derivation of a creative work. You support private companies taking this freely-given resource, creating products from it, profiting from them, and not release the source as the conditions demand?
- allait 15y ago
  BSD, Apache and many other licenses allow exactly this: derived works may be released under proprietary license.
- Peaker 15y ago
  Well, given that I oppose copyright, I support the GPL -- exactly because it uses copyright restrictions to neutralize copyright restrictions. In other words, the only restrictions placed by the GPL are those that restrict use of copyright -- and I definitely support those. Apache and BSD licenses are basically only anti-plagiarizing, afaik. How would companies profit from a work that everyone can freely copy, in a way that does not add value to society and indeed to the original author?

baddox 15y ago

True, it is another thing, but I'll say it: all work (obviously, in this context of digital "intellectual property") should be public. I left "property" off the end of the sentence for the same reason I put "intellectual property" in quotes: I don't believe that property rights make sense when applied to abstract, non-scarce things like ideas and digital works. This really isn't about controlling the fruits of your labor, because creative works are really only valuable if they're distributed. If you want to design a website and keep it secret on your local machine, then by all means property rights protect it (i.e. it's illegal to steal your laptop). But if you distribute it on a global network where people freely trade bits, I don't believe you should have the right to control which bits people can copy and which bits they can't. Both choices (keeping the website secret or publishing it) constitute your legal rights to the fruits of your labor. But once someone gets the bits onto their computer with your consent (by visiting your public website), I don't believe you should have the right to control what they can do with those bits. If you like, I believe you have the right to perform any obfuscation you want to with your digital works, or find ways of providing scarce (non-copyable) value. DRM and software as a service are examples of these, respectively.

ams6110 15y ago
This is the same argument that was had about whether it was OK to make photocopies of content in books and magazines at the library, or record a radio broadcast or TV program. I would agree with you that up to a point it is: the content is made available to or broadcast to the public, and that implies a certain license to personally do what you want with it once you receive it. Hence copying or scanning printed material for later reference, time-shifting TV programs and sports events with DVR is generally and legally recognized as "OK" (I believe that "fair use" is the legal term here). Likewise when you put your creative content on the internet, you are implicitly granting some license to people who view that content. They can view the source, study your CSS and javascript, save it for offline viewing if they want. But when you take someone else's content, be it a book, a TV broadcast or a web site design, copy it either completely or substantially, and then proceed to personally profit from that work without the permission of the creator, you've crossed the line. Granted the distinction between copying (bad) and imitation (flattery?) can be fuzzy, but in this case it seems very clear.